Prospectus for Friends MK Senior Co-Housing · development process (planners, investors, developers), and for other stakeholders interested in our proposals (possible neighbours,

PROSPECTUS 2019

STILL GREEN - Third Age Cohousing June 2019

2

Still Adj. calm, unmoving, peaceful. Conj. yet, nevertheless. Noun, abbr. form of distillation

apparatus, as used e.g. for raising and purifying spirits.

Green Adj. (1) coloured as grass, young leaves etc; (2) concerned with preserving the

environment (as in Green Party); (3) naïve, unripe. Noun, common land, often for

recreation, as in village green.

For further information, visit www.stillgreenweb.org

For the avoidance of doubt, this document simply sets out the current thinking of those who are Still

Green members at this time. Nothing in this Prospectus can or should be taken as making a

contractual offer or undertaking.

Revised and updated from the original Still Green Prospectus, published January 2015.

© Still Green (Third Age Cohousing) CIC 2019.

The Prospectus is published under a Creative Commons License and we welcome use and adaptation

of material within it, subject to appropriate acknowledgements.

http://www.stillgreenweb.org.uk/


3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This prospectus has been written for prospective members, for our potential partners in the

development process (planners, investors, developers), and for other stakeholders interested in our

proposals (possible neighbours, others in the UK cohousing network).

Our project is to build a socially inclusive and self-reliant neighbourhood of up to about 30

sustainable homes in a co-housing scheme for members aged 50 years and upwards. Resident

members – both owner-occupiers and tenants - will have their own separate dwellings and also

share rights to and responsibilities for certain common facilities.

Co-housing in this form is a way of providing a secure and supportive environment through the

second half of life – without putting oneself in the hands of a large and perhaps expensive

institution. It is also a way of joining a group of like-minded people in an ‘eco’ self-build project. The

scheme addresses matters of concern to national and local policy-makers in the fields of house-

building, sustainability, and housing for the elderly.

Still Green is incorporated as a Community Interest Company. It works through a Board, regular

General Meetings, and Action Groups; and works with professional advisors sympathetic to our

project.

Reaching this current point draws on what was learned by visiting established senior cohousing

schemes in Holland as well as visits to recent UK schemes; and it builds on the experience of

pursuing discussions with developers and land-owners for different sites in Milton Keynes (including

one ‘near miss,’ where complications with the site and financing meant we had to withdraw).

A summary of our thinking is provided, covering such key issues as the criteria for a site, building

design and sustainability, shared facilities, membership and residency criteria, and how the

character of the scheme can be preserved. Another section explores the financial issues – how

much homes will cost to buy or rent (in so far as these can be estimated at this stage), and the

challenges of constructing a robust financial plan.

Currently, Still Green is in serious discussion over suitable sites in both Milton Keynes and at the

Graven Hill Development in Bicester. Separate plans are being developed for each site; these

complement the core proposition set out in this prospectus. If and when an agreement is reached,

this will be a watershed – design and planning can then start in earnest. The considerable challenges

that will follow are summarised.

For members of Still Green this is exciting and personally important. It is also challenging. We have

to prepare ourselves, support each other, and take the time to think through what is required of us,

individually and corporately. The project is about building a neighbourhood and a community, not

just houses. How we work together on this will shape that neighbourhood and community.


4

This convivial Dutch cohousing scheme combines private and social housing.


5

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 VISION AND VALUES

2 TO WHAT ENDS?

3 ORGANIZATION AND LEGAL FORM

4 WHAT WILL IT BE LIKE? – CHALLENGES AND CHOICES

5 HOW MUCH WILL IT COST? -

PRICES AND FINANCIAL VIABILITY

6 HOW DO WE GET THERE? - PROJECT AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Appendix 1 - On the neighbourhood, homes and relationships we seek Appendix 2 - Still Green as a contribution to public policy Appendix 3 – Membership Criteria And Application Process Appendix 4 – Origins: the backstory of Still Green


6

1 VISION AND VALUES

Still Green aims to create a highly sustainable, socially inclusive and self-reliant neighbourhood,

based on cohousing principles and focussed on the needs of people aged 50+.

All involved aspire to:

• Cohousing. Residents live in their individual dwellings but also share some facilities (eg, a

common house, gardens, shared tools)1. Drawing on experience in other countries,

cohousing works best at a scale of 20-30 units.

• A ‘second-half-of-life’ orientation. The scheme aims to provide a positive alternative to the

limited choice of living arrangements currently available to ourselves and to others aged

fifty-plus. We expect to encompass a range of ages and to remain involved for many years in

the wider society around us.

• Green and sustainable. We aim to create a green development, one with gardens and trees

but also the highest practicable standards of sustainability

• Mixed tenure. Valued members of our group include people in very different financial

circumstances and it is important to us to include units for rent (both at market and

affordable levels) as well as for owner-occupation (including shared ownership).

• Homes designed with us not just for us. We expect to commission and oversee the design of

our homes (sometimes called ‘group self-build’)

• Mutual support and deepening friendships. We envisage friendships developing

naturally among us as we share responsibilities, common interests and the things

that are important to us. We hope for a place where we can be ourselves and are

accepting of each other, and where we look out for each other (without peering in

on each other).

• Sharing our experience. As we have learned from other cohousing and green-build projects,

so we expect in due course to offer information about our project to others interested in

these matters.

Our aspirations for the third age cohousing are discussed further in Appendix 1 - On the

neighbourhood, homes and relationships we seek.

1 Until recently co-housing was a rarity in the UK. Now Still Green is one among a growing number

of groups forming across the country (http://www.cohousing.org.uk/).

http://www.cohousing.org.uk/


7

2 TO WHAT ENDS?

People join our scheme for a range of reasons. Those attracted to the idea of cohousing will usually

be experiencing a combination of ‘pushes’ and ‘pulls’. Push factors include the need to ‘downsize’

from the much-loved family home; a concern to have neighbourly support (so as to avoid being a

burden on distant family); or wanting to make the most of a fixed income. ‘Pull’ factors include

wanting to live more sustainably (and the chance to join an ‘eco’ self-build project), and the prospect

of being part of a strong community in one’s later years. The scheme has to meet these varied needs

and aspirations – that is a precondition for success. Left at that, Still Green would only be a private

solution to its members’ private concerns – and this would miss essential dimensions of the project.

In fact, our needs and aspirations are not so unusual. It is recognised across the political spectrum

that acute shortages of buildable land have led to a house-building industry marked by monopolistic

competition among large companies and limited choice for customers. As a result, the UK has a tiny

proportion of ‘self-built’ homes compared to other countries. Government policy is now attempting

to redress this and to open up the housing market to new forms of provision.

For those in the second half of life, the situation is even less satisfactory – and again this is a matter

of public policy concern and debate. In brief, the issues include homes ill-designed for older people

(and so requiring expensive adaptations later), the isolation and loneliness that we may experience,

and our need for occasional practical support (and how this may be easily sought and safely

provided). These are matters most people know they will need to consider sooner or later, like it or

not. Companies, public bodies and charities have developed various solutions - retirement

complexes, assisted living, sheltered housing, and so on. Too often, however, they are expensive, or

they are part of very large schemes to obtain economies of scale, or they are limited to the most frail

and needy. By contrast, senior co-housing promises support without institutionalization, since

neighbourly concern can delay and reduce the need for bought in care services, and at lower cost,

since self-management replaces paid services and corporate overheads.

These issues are complex and are discussed further in Appendix 2 – Still Green as a Contribution to

Public Policy. The essential point is that the issues that Still Green is addressing are more than the

idiosyncratic concerns of those who have chosen to join: they are central matters in current housing

and social policy, and what works for us might work for others.

In tackling these challenges we see ourselves as part of loose-knit social movements exploring

different forms of living and/or ageing together. We continue to learn a great deal from visiting

other communities and projects. Like them we are hoping to develop our own exemplary scheme:

one that shows what can be done by people like us in situations like ours. A different group

elsewhere would do things differently, of course. But our experience can still inform and encourage

others - so we look forward, in due course, to sharing that experience. From this angle, we are

another small band joining in a long and honourable tradition of self-organized social

experimentation in housing – the Garden City movement, the co-operative movement in housing,

the Camphill Communities, self-build communities and eco-villages, and so on.


8

The common house in a cohousing scheme In Belgium

These considerations mean that we have group and social purposes as well as our individual

purposes. A scheme that does not work for us as individuals (and couples) will fail, and will have

nothing except negative lessons to offer the wider society. But part of what it means for the scheme

to work for us separately is that it succeeds socially, that the resident members form a convivial and

mutually supportive milieu. That social success can never be guaranteed. But like any other band of

companions, we are stronger for having some shared purposes that go beyond our own private and

group concerns. And so our private, shared and public purposes are intertwined.

Shared workshop in Rainbow Cohousing Cooperative in Milton Keynes


9

3 ORGANIZATION AND LEGAL FORM

In 2014, following several years of discussion and planning, Still Green incorporated as a Community

Interest Company (CIC). This hybrid form combines an ‘asset lock’ (vital for the receipt of

public/charitable funds), scope for different sorts of members, and the integration of individual,

group and social purposes. The company’s objects are:

“… to carry on activities which benefit the community and in particular (without limitation)

to expand the choices for housing and good neighbourliness among those aged over 50

years by establishing and providing a co-housing scheme in which members may live and by

sharing the experience of doing so with other interested persons.”

Our Articles of Association enable us to operate initially as a developer and thereafter as a distinctive

type of Residents Association. The company will

i) Promote membership and uphold the terms of membership.

ii) Own the freehold of the land.

iii) Own, manage and maintain the common house, the common gardens, and any other

shared facilities.

iv) Own, manage and maintain the rental property, including setting rents and charges; or

enter into partnership arrangements with a housing association or other body to provide

and maintain the rental properties.

v) Support and oversee the sale and letting of Units to members who wish to become

residents of the cohousing scheme.

vi) Support and oversee the life of the neighbourhood in any other ways that serve the

purposes of members, including entering into partnership arrangements with providers

of facilities wanted by members.

vii) Facilitate the documentation and sharing of the experience of creating and running the

neighbourhood.

Beyond the legal documentation, Still Green Policies & Procedures (SGPP) sets out in ordinary

language the way we are organized, our values and practices on important matters, and the way we

make appointments and decisions. It is and will remain an evolving document. Much has still to be

decided, and we will need to make changes and additions as we face new challenges. New members

receive the current version on joining.

Individuals can become members of Still Green once they have attended two meetings as visitors,

discussed and learned about the project and cohousing more generally, and paid the annual

membership fee (currently £60 per annum). Seniority in membership confers rights to an early

choice of unit once a scheme takes shape.

At the present time cohousing membership carries a strong presumption of the chance to become a

resident. This cannot yet be guaranteed - for the simple reason that we do not know how many


10

units of different sizes we will have available2 or the prices, and whether or not these will be within

the available financial resources of all members. If at a later point we look like having more

members than units likely to be available on the site we have acquired, then this will be made clear

to prospective members, and a waiting list created3.

Currently Still Green has 25 members. The membership criteria and application process are set out

in Appendix 3.

The Board, chosen by members at the Annual General Meeting, meets about monthly. General

meetings are held every two months (or more frequently if necessary). In both contexts our practice

is to make decisions by consensus, through careful preparation, listening and reflection. The origins

and early years of Still Green are summarised in Appendix 4 and this may help in understanding why

we manage our affairs as we do.

Between general meetings most of the work is progressed by individuals and small groups working

on particular issues.

Almshouses in Bruges show that the Courtyard design is timeless

2 That depends on the size of the site. Moreover, a simple ‘first come, first served’ principle has to be

tempered by some other considerations – especially the need to establish an appropriate age distribution.

3 For all kinds of reasons (eg, to do with changed family or financial circumstances) not everyone who is a full

member will, in the event, take up the offer of residency. In practice, it seems that those on a cohousing waiting list are very likely to have the chance of early residency.


11

4 WHAT WILL IT BE LIKE? – CHALLENGES AND CHOICES

Discussions over several years have generated clarity on some important issues. This thinking now

informs our plans and discussions with advisors.

Site selection. Early work on site selection criteria highlighted some of what will be needed for a

‘good’ site (distance to local shops and health services, transport links, limited noise pollution, safe,

nearby walks, etc.). Unsurprisingly, such a site is likely to be relatively expensive. A further

consideration is planning risk - as elsewhere, planning approval processes can be prolonged,

uncertain and expensive. Failure to obtain planning permission can mean writing off tens of

thousands of pounds. Using our criteria, we have appraised many sites and are confident that the

possibilities currently being pursued would meet our needs very well. One site is in Milton Keynes

and another is in Bicester. Securing a site is challenging and success is far from guaranteed. We

believe that if we pursue two possibilities, the chances of one coming though are higher – and if

both succeed, so much the better. Some members much prefer one, some the other, and some will

chose which ever happens first.

Site configuration. We tend to favour what might be called a mini ‘village green’ – where homes in

a range of building sizes and styles overlook a central garden, with parking around the perimeter.

But we have also seen beautiful, well-designed schemes based only on flats, and only on terraces.

We are aiming to have one, two and three bedroom apartments and a few terraced houses, but the

fewer the variations in size/specification, the more economical the scheme. Decisions on these

matters will be heavily conditioned by the size and shape of the site we secure; and by the price of

the land. The more sought-after the site, the more expensive it will be, and the higher the density

needed to ensure both sustainability and affordability.

Shared facilities. These would certainly include the Common House and gardens. These will be

funded initially by a charge on the overall cost of each of the cohousing units, and they will require a

modest service charge for running costs and maintenance4. The visits to senior co-housing schemes

in other countries helped in highlighting the facilities that are actually used. We are generally

agreed over the extent of these facilities and the priorities for what should be included: a common

room including a dining area for shared meals (with a kitchen area); rooms for meetings and/or

office space and/or a utility room/laundry; and workshop space-cum-storage for bicycles, electric

buggies, garden tools, etc – along with space where residents can store ‘stuff’ they are not yet ready

to let go of. There would also be rubbish and recycling collection points, some visitor parking, and

4 How much is this likely to be? That depends how much is work is undertaken by members and how much is

paid for. The charge will need to cover insurance, utilities and any other running costs; bought-in maintenance of the property and gardens (if any); and occasional redecoration and refurbishment. Initial estimates are that a charge of one or two pounds per resident per week may well be sufficient.


12

hopefully a guest room. However, as with so much else, what is possible will depend to a very great

extent on the site chosen, and on the existing facilities in the locality.

Procurement/ development strategy. The spectrum of possibilities ranges from being our own

developer (as essentially a ‘group self-build’ scheme), through to agreeing a specification with a

developer, and committing to buy the resulting properties. Both approaches can work; each has

risks, advantages and disadvantages. In essence, the former approach is extremely demanding of

time and effort, while the latter risks losing control of price and/or quality. Various intermediate

possibilities exist. In any event, we will need to clarify the sort of contracting relationships that will

align incentives, and share risks and rewards, in undertaking a development that will present some

unfamiliar challenges in design and construction.

Building design and sustainability.

On these complex issues our aim is to be well-informed clients who are clear about our

requirements – and to that end we have been educating ourselves through visits, reading and

workshops. We are seeking a high standard of sustainability – either Passivhaus or equivalent to

the Code for Sustainable Homes level 5 or 6, and have worked with architectural advisors

accordingly. This means they will be well insulated and energy efficient, helping to reduce running

costs and carbon emissions. We require homes with ample natural light, and expect to make

maximum practical use of solar PV and passive solar heating (allowing that this will be affected by

features of the site chosen). Building to ‘lifetime standards’ - so that the buildings are suitable for

frail older people (and/or can be easily modified as required) - is taken as a minimum, not a

maximum. We see ‘dry-build’ construction using timber frame as a promising way both to expedite

the construction phase, and to meet our sustainability concerns (wood products from managed

forest sources are now a mainstream construction material).

Ownership and management of the rental units. Whilst Still Green seeks to develop a mixed tenure

scheme and wants to assist with social and affordable housing, we are well aware that this

aspiration brings its own set of financial and organizational challenges. In principle, Still Green might

own the units directly, or it might create an associated entity (a charity, a multi-stakeholder co-op),

or it might contract with a housing association. However, this choice will be conditioned by several

factors: the potential to attract finance, the competences needed for property letting and

management (and the cost of securing these), the management of risk (so that difficulties in the

letting of homes does not bring down the whole company), and a possible loss of control over who is

a tenant within the cohousing scheme. There may well be a tax dimension. We will therefore need

to obtain legal and other specialist advice in order to determine the simplest arrangement that will

secure the provision of rental units, including affordable housing, as an integral part of the scheme,

on a sound financial basis.

Eligibility for the ‘Affordable’ units. We expect all resident members of the cohousing scheme,

whether owner occupiers or affordable purchasers or renters, to be full and equal members of Still

Green. This means meeting the membership criteria and contributing as best they can to the running

of the cohousing community. Anyone hoping to secure such a tenancy would also have to be eligible

for Local Authority social/affordable housing. One way this can be done is by the Local Authority

approving the allocation of Still Green’s social/affordable units to members of Still Green who are


13

tenants of Housing Association or Council property in the Local Authority area5. In this way,

individuals currently in social/affordable housing could join Still Green and in due course move into a

unit in the Still Green Community.

First residents – the importance of the age profile. The social success of the cohousing scheme

requires that residents have a spread of ages from 50+ to 90+. The importance of this point

becomes obvious if one considers what would happen if nearly all the initial residents were (say)

aged 60-70: essentially, they would grow old together - and the character of the neighbourhood

would change accordingly. Likewise, the scheme would be transformed if the next generation of

potential residents put off joining until they were 75 or 80 (or if those at this age were willing to pay

the most for properties on sale). Either or both of these possibilities would mean the scheme would

become, in effect, a sort of informal and erratic sheltered housing for the already frail. This means

that the initial cohort of residents must be spread across the second half of life; and that, normally,

those joining thereafter are aged (say) 65 or below. This spread of ages will not and need not be

precise; nevertheless, without some clear expectations and rules around this point the character of

the scheme cannot be preserved.

A ‘managed market’ for the re-sale and rental of homes. Although rents and prices would normally

be set with regard to comparable rents and prices in the locality, that does not mean that units will

be available on the open market. This is because, as in other cohousing schemes, only members may

become residents. This brings some challenges - but drawing on experience elsewhere, the

solutions are clear. First, restrictive covenants can ensure properties when they become available

are only sold to those eligible. Such arrangements are normal in other UK housing for older people

(for example, The English Courtyards Association; visit http://www.cognatum.co.uk/Home.aspx ) as

well as other co-housing schemes in Europe and the US. Secondly, the creation of an attractive and

socially vibrant neighbourhood is the single most important way of ensuring a pool of non-resident

members - those who join with a view to becoming residents in the future. Such waiting lists of

would-be residents are the norm in cohousing and in other age-restricted housing schemes. Third,

in the absence of a non-resident member wishing to buy a unit of the size that has become available,

a time limit might be set for attracting a new member as a purchaser. If this is not successful then

the fall-back would be for Still Green itself to buy and then let the unit for a period, or as a very last

resort for properties to be sold on the open market. Policies on these matters will need to be

agreed by members in good time.

5 This is the essence of an agreement we have with Milton Keynes Council.

http://www.cognatum.co.uk/Home.aspx


14

5 HOW MUCH WILL IT COST? - PRICES AND FINANCIAL VIABILITY

This section sets out Still Green’s current thinking on the unit prices and rent levels that will be

needed to ensure a viable scheme. A great deal depends on how the development is undertaken

and our role in it; on the character of the area (affecting land value – approximately one-third of the

cost of house); and on choices we will have to make as the scheme takes shape. Nevertheless, some

pointers and principles are clear.

(1) Prices for units in the scheme must offer good value for money compared to other retirement

homes or downsizing options. That said, comparability is hard to establish – there will be nothing

else quite like Still Green available. Members and potential members have to factor in the additional

benefits:

- high sustainability (including very low utility bills)

- the character of the neighbourhood, offering enhanced support and security

- a ‘future-proofed’ home

- use of shared facilities, including the common house, garden, guest room etc

- helping to design and run the scheme, meaning low service charges and fewer formalities.

Some of these, like the higher design standard and the shared facilities, will add to the building

costs. However, a plan that expected members to pay a lot more compared to other property in the

area (and perhaps risk losing money on a re-sale) would find it hard to attract the required number

of members.

In broad terms, therefore, we have taken ‘good value-for-money’ to mean that members can see the

relationship to local market (or affordable) prices for properties of a comparable size - and decide if

it is right for them. Because a unit in Still Green will be a premium product with more features and

lower ‘running costs’ (compared with a similar-sized, conventional flat or house), prices may be

slightly higher. Put another way, co-housing involves trading some private space (a smaller flat, say)

in return for much more shared space (the common house and garden).

For those seeking to buy a unit, what all this means is that what they can expect will depend mainly

on what they can afford, or wish to spend, given the price of similarly-sized, good quality units in the

locality. A useful rule of thumb for estimating prices is therefore to check the price of new houses

locally, or to use the average cost /m² of new property in the area. In the case of the sites considered

so far, the price has been of the order of £3500 - £4,000/m². Along with an estimate of the size unit

sought (50 m², 80 m², etc.), this then gives a ball park figure for the cost of such a unit.

For those wishing to rent at ‘affordable’ or social levels, the same principle, of being comparable

with other affordable and social housing locally, applies.

(2) Still Green can only finance, and procure or build, rental homes that can be sustained by the

income from those properties. The provision of 31% affordable units without public subsidy is now a

requirement of housing development of the size envisaged. The policy assumption is that building

the affordable units can be funded by the sale of the other 70% of units, and that the market value


15

of the land will be driven down accordingly - so that building developments remain viable taken as a

whole. Nevertheless, financing the construction of rental units raises a thicket of issues. One

approach would be to partner with a Housing Association. Another is to seek some capital funding

on ‘soft’ or social investment terms. A third would be to seek charitable support (a donation). Much

depends on the particularities of a scheme. The general point is that Still Green’s commitment to

mixed tenure comes at a price: it gives rise to additional financial and governance complexity. How

the competing priorities are balanced and fit together can only be worked out in relation to a

specific development prospect.

(3) Whatever approach to development is chosen (i.e. whether Still Green is the developer, or Still

Green partners with a developer), the business plan has to forecast an appreciable financial surplus.

Without such a forecast, credibly based, banks and other lenders (not to mention architects and

builders) will shy away – because it would mean that if difficulties arose (cost over-runs, building

delays, unsold units…) their money would be lost. The conventional figure for this surplus is 20% - it

provides both a sufficient cushion and an incentive for the developer to keep as far as possible to

budget (so they make a profit). As a developer, we might choose to work with a different percentage

– but we cannot stray far from industry norms without making things difficult for ourselves.

Taken together, these three propositions are challenging. To explore them, we commissioned

professional assistance to model all the costs and revenues involved over time, in order to examine

the prospects for a robustly viable scheme. Doing so involved making assumptions about the cost of

land, how many dwellings of different sizes would be required, the extent of shared ownership,

likely rental incomes, interest rates, voids… and much else besides. These assumptions involved

estimates regarding matters that can only be resolved, step by step, as the project proceeds.

Nevertheless, such exercises are informative - not least in highlighting the room for manoeuvre that

Still Green has, the choices open to us, in fashioning a viable scheme. These include the following

possibilities.

□ Increasing the build density. Building more units on a given site spreads the land and indirect

costs of the project. Whether or not a high build density actually feels crowded or open will depend

on design and, crucially, on the land use around the site.

□ Reducing the build cost. The main possibilities are:

a) Simplifying the configuration of units - a scheme based on, say, a block of flats and one terrace,

and with fewer variations in size/specification, would be cheaper to design and build, and would

allow our sustainability ambitions to be realised more economically.

b) Reducing the sustainability specification – the additional cost required for high sustainability

buildings is falling as new technologies and building methods mature; but how far and how fast they

have fallen is a subject of considerable controversy.

c) Reducing the size of the common house, gardens and common facilities – this would trim the cost

of units in the scheme.

□ Reducing finance costs. Securing a mortgage on advantageous terms has a substantial impact (on

some scenarios a 1% reduction in the mortgage interest rate reduces the funding gap by more than

£100,000). Such terms might be obtained by turning to social investors of one sort or another (and


16

there are now many). For example, the Ecology Building Society offers preferential terms to

Passivhaus and Level 6 Sustainable homes. In addition, some individuals known to members have

said they would be willing to consider a form of ‘buy-to-let’ arrangement with Still Green.

Adjusting the scheme in these different ways can only go so far. Trade-offs arise: cutting back on

sustainability or on common facilities, say, risks making the scheme less attractive and thus less

rather than more viable. Even if they are judiciously combined, the results may only break even, or

forecast a modest surplus. In short, the scheme would be borderline viable. This is quite common

among social enterprises. Many combine sales income with sponsorship, or some public and/or

philanthropic support provided as a cost-effective way of securing specific public or social benefits.

The point about such arrangements is that quite a small amount of additional funding (or even just

loan guarantees) can tip the balance towards viability, or take much of the risk out of quite a large

project.

Still Green might attract additional income in several ways. Perhaps by becoming a demonstration

site for sustainable building technologies we could attract sponsorship in the form of discounts on

the costs of MVHR systems, building panels, rainwater harvesting, solar panels, and the like.

Another possibility would be securing a grant from the Community Housing Fund. Still Green could

also seek modest amounts of grant funding from charitable trusts, most obviously (but not only),

those concerned with housing for older people. Such Trusts might be keen to see this innovation in

housing for older people take place for the reasons set out in Appendix 2.

A much more detailed treatment of the issues outlined in this section is provided in a confidential

client report prepared for Still Green by the National Custom and Self-Build Association and funded

by the Right to Build Task Force6

Participants ponder their choices in the ‘Dummy Run‘ design exercise

6 Still Green – Business Plan for Project Development, NaCSBA, February 2019, 65 pp plus appendices.


17

6 HOW DO WE GET THERE? - PROJECT AND COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT

At some point – perhaps quite soon – we will face what is a critical transition for cohousing projects.

The ideas must change from being a fond but indeterminate hope into a specific project that is

happening (on that site… to something like this timescale… with these people as the nucleus…).

Suddenly, it will start to get real!

How the project then unfolds depends on the approach chosen – whether Still Green will develop

the site or is partnering with a developer who will bring expertise and shoulder more of the risks.

These possibilities are discussed in plans, provided separately, that are being developed to meet the

very different opportunities and challenges of the particular sites we are pursuing.

In either case, to be ready to move quickly, we have to assume that agreed terms for the acquisition

of a site can be hammered out. Likewise, in either case, we will immediately have to tackle

essentially the same three strands of work:

• Architectural design. A detailed site plan is the precondition for planning approval and

agreement for design and build contracts. We will be working with architects and planning

advisors to understand the constraints and possibilities of the site and to clarify our own

priorities for it. We may need to engage with existing residents in the locality to explain

what we are hoping to do, and to discover whether any of the ideas for shared facilities

might also enhance the wider neighbourhood. In many ways, this will be the most creative

and exciting part of the project. It is also vital that we progress it expeditiously, so that later

we do not hold up the work, or generate additional costs by changing our minds about what

we want. Our plans will have to be developed in increasing detail, in order to generate the

costings and building specifications that will also be required.

• Business planning. We need to refine our thinking on the business plan, clarifying our own

requirements and building relationships with financial partners. We know from experience

that as we set about securing an interest in a site, our outgoings will rise steadily. We will

need to pay further legal fees and for the work to secure full planning permission. Some,

perhaps all, of this will have to be funded by members; this requires an agreed policy on the

provision of unsecured loans. Even if we simplify things by partnering with a developer,

financial commitments will be required to demonstrate that we are serious, and legal

expenses will also be incurred. For some of those wishing to become owner-occupiers,

funding their purchase will be less of an issue (because they already own their own homes

with little if any mortgage outstanding; and/or they are down-sizing from larger properties).

Nevertheless, the timing of house sales and having funds available for contractors will be a

concern. Hence, as well as an overall business plan that adds up, a plan (built upon clear

undertakings) for managing the cash-flow of project development will be critical.


18

• Growing the Community. Still Green requires more members – and crucially, the level of

commitment required of members will increase as the project advances (in due course they

will need to give undertakings to buy or lease the homes they have helped to design).

Decisions to join and to seek residency cannot be rushed; and there will be leavers as well as

joiners – already, some members have regretfully resigned after moving elsewhere to be

closer to family and grandchildren, or because they needed to downsize sooner. This

sustained build-up of membership also needs to be targeted in order to ensure an

appropriate age-profile. Recruiting and absorbing new members takes time and energy.

These three strands of work are inter-related and interdependent. A strong and committed

membership is the foundation, without which financial partners will look askance. From experience

elsewhere, an attractive design for the site we hope to secure will boost interest and recruitment

dramatically. But generating that design and the associated business plan requires us, increasingly,

to pay for professional assistance.

None of the challenges outlined are insoluble – indeed, they have been solved by others again and

again elsewhere. But they do require Still Green to build a certain sort of ‘muscle’. Designing and

developing a scheme costing perhaps £8 million will involve extensive decision-making and is bound

to incur some strains and stresses - even if it is also fascinating and a lot of fun. So we have to ready

ourselves, and to give the time and energy warranted by a project that can positively impact the rest

of our lives. If we are prepared to do that, it will be the making of us as a community – and not just

as a physical neighbourhood.

In search of consensus – members in meeting


19

Appendix 1 - On the neighbourhood, homes and relationships we seek

A series of discussions and workshops explored what co-housing might mean for the growing group

that became Still Green. We read about, visited and discussed co-housing; we shared hopes and

fears; reflected on the experience of our parents and grandparents in their later years; appraised

what we like about our current living arrangements and their limitations; and considered the

economics of ageing. The notes that follow condense recurring themes from these sessions, as

captured originally in notes and on flip charts. But reading this compilation is no substitute for

prospective members working out for themselves what they want from cohousing.

Peace of mind – the security that comes from knowing that people are looking out for us, from

affordability, from belonging without being obliged always to join in, from having someone to turn

to on simple maintenance issues.

Continuity – enabled by units designed with the requirements of later years in mind, and even the

scope for further down-sizing within the neighbourhood.

Contact and support – shared activities of all sorts, avoiding the “I’ve not seen anyone all day”

syndrome, being able to choose who to ask when help is needed, having nearby friends who know

you and who will help handle health and care systems if one suffers a sudden decline.

Continuing engagement with the world – be it continuing economic activity (full, part-time, casual or

voluntary work), facilitating visits by our children and grandchildren, or participating in the wider

opportunities around us.

Simplicity – walking to local amenities, reducing outgoings, being able to live with less ‘stuff’

(through sharing), reducing our ‘footprints’, and growing our own.

Design with nature – living in an attractive built and natural environment, offering gardens, trees

and aspects that go well beyond what we could enjoy in separate houses.

Relational maturity – because we know we are the problem as well as the solution, and that some

difficult collective decisions will still arise. So we need transparent structures, and to be accepting of

each other’s foibles and weaknesses.

While these are important as reference points, when presented in this way they can seem a bit

idealized and unreal. They may even suggest a monoculture, rather than the mix of very different

lifestyles represented. In fact, our discussions recognized the dilemmas that arise when different

aspirations conflict, and our own ambivalences about some of what we seek. Yes, we want

community! – but hold on, that should not be at the expense of personal space and autonomy or

involve too much responsibility for others… We want close friendships within the neighbourhood –

but no way do we need cliques…. Likewise we are keen on self-management and everyone having

their say – but whoa! Don’t expect us to spend every evening in meetings… We want lots of activity

and engagement – except of course when we want to be left alone in peace and quiet… We insist on

a beautiful, well-located and highly sustainable neighbourhood – that is also simple and affordable,

of course.


20

Recognizing these ambivalences and trade-offs suggest another way of expressing our hopes. We

are seeking affordable quality and a fulsome simplicity; connected autonomy; selective engagement

and permeable boundaries; lively occasions and also companionable silences; flexible policies and

‘good enough’ decision-making.…

Finally, the inevitable tensions among our aspirations, both individual and collective, mean accepting

that there will be no end point in developing our neighbourhood. It will be more organic than that.

The shared facilities will need to be reviewed - and changed, extended or retrenched. Arrangements

for shared meals, gardens, maintenance, or membership, will need adjustment and re-balancing.

New needs will emerge, new people will replace those who pass on, new ideas will be suggested. It

will keep developing – and we do not need to get everything right first time.

Appendix 2 - Still Green as a contribution to Public Policy

Still Green contributes directly to several public policy agendas – including the encouragement of the

custom build market (http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/ourwork/custom-build) and the

imperative of more sustainable development, notably the push towards zero-carbon building

(http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/ourwork/sustainable-development ). However the

strongest connection – if only in terms of the potential for a positive impact on public finances – is

with the challenges of the housing, health and social care of ‘our ageing population’ (see, for

examples: http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/ourwork/happi and

http://www.cohousing.org.uk/files/growing_old_together_report_final.pdf which also gives pointers

to relevant literature).

Viewed negatively, this is a looming public policy disaster much discussed in the press: ever-

increasing numbers of elderly people whose families live far off, requiring ever more elaborate

health and social care services, for longer periods. Simplifying ruthlessly, such analyses assume that

we are the problem: most of us will require the services of a formal system to compensate for the

shortcomings of ways of living into which we will myopically decline. We do not doubt for a minute

the need for those formal health and social care systems; but they have limits. In health, prevention

is better than cure, while for much ordinary social support and assistance, mutuality trumps

dependency on professional (ie, impersonal) systems in terms of both cost and quality.

Crucially, our health and well-being are not done to us, but created by and with us (they are co-

produced, in the jargon). And if we are part of the solution as well as part of the problem, our living

longer ceases to be an intractable challenge. Indeed, viewed positively, this is a marvellous

opportunity previously bestowed on a lucky few in each generation: to remain active, enjoying

family, companionship and security, to fill the space given by reduced responsibilities with new or

postponed interests, to engage with friends and to be there for them; and to continue assisting each

other and contributing to the community as one’s energy allows.

The links between senior co-housing and desired policy outcomes are summarised in the diagram

below. Most of these separate causal links are well established in the relevant academic and policy

literatures. However, the long-term research to establish the overall strength of the relationship

between senior co-housing and the desired outcomes still needs to be undertaken.

http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/ourwork/custom-build

http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/ourwork/sustainable-development

http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/ourwork/happi

http://www.cohousing.org.uk/files/growing_old_together_report_final.pdf


21

Appendix 3 - Membership criteria and application process

If you want to know more, look at our website www.stillgreenweb.org and contact us through the

website or by email to [email protected]. You will be invited to our next meeting as a

visitor. It will either be a General Meeting or a social event, which happen on alternate months so

that as a group we have the opportunity to meet together each month. You will also be invited to

have a phone conversation with a member about yourself, what you are looking for and what is

currently happening in Still Green. These occasions are important – they will help you understand

the nature of the project, what it will involve, and the current state of play. It also provides you with

a chance to clarify with others what you are looking for in terms of housing in your later years.

Thereafter, you will be welcome to attend General Meetings and social events, and to become

involved for a period of up to four months. This is a chance to get to know the existing members,

and to consider whether this scheme may be right for you. After attending two meetings you can

apply to become a member but by the end of four months, if not before, you are expected to have

decided whether or not to apply for membership.

Membership is primarily for those wishing to be part of a cohousing scheme and willing to

contribute time, energy and money to make it happen. We also have some ‘supporting members’

http://www.stillgreenweb.org/

mailto:[email protected]


22

who want to assist the project or to stay in touch with it, even if at this point they are unsure about

becoming a resident.

Additional conditions for membership are:

• At least one resident in each household should be aged 50 or older, though there can be

exceptions.

• Members wish to help create and live in a highly sustainable, socially inclusive and self-

reliant neighbourhood and are expected to participate in the planning and development of

the scheme, whether as a future home owner or future tenant.

• Members are expected to join in the governance and management of the project

• Members pay subscriptions (currently £60 per annum), and contribute loans and/or

advance payments as agreed by the membership.

• All members must sign up to our values and principles.

OUR VALUES AND PRINCIPLES

In Still Green – part friendship group, part business – how we deal with each other is particularly

important. So we ask applicants to consider, discuss and form a view on the following values and

principles which the current members hope can continue to underpin our neighbourly relationships.

Respect for each other. Some of the things this means for us are having, and expressing, goodwill

towards each other; treating each other with consideration and as equals; being open to the insights

and concerns others have; and accepting each other as we are.

Personal responsibility. We are all crew, there are no passengers – albeit we may contribute in very

different ways at different times, according to our gifts and experience. We take responsibility for

our own failings – we try not to bluster or blame others.

Valuing our relationships. This may require effort, seeking ways to be considerately truthful, to

listen hard and communicate gently, keeping ‘short accounts’ rather than accumulating points of

complaint or bearing grudges.

Consensual decision-making. We are concerned with the process, not just the result – and good

process may require extensive preparation. Deliberating together is not the same as arguing. ‘Straw

votes’ can be informative, but making decisions by voting can easily become divisive. With difficult

issues, especially, we need to seek creative solutions and the common ground. The aim is to agree

ways forward, to set out a remit for action and for clear accountability.

Authority and trust. We believe authority comes from the task, from seeing what really needs doing,

more than from role or seniority. We believe those holding positions of responsibility must earn

trust, and then be trusted (and supported). The same applies to professionals we have selected to

work for us. Everyone cannot and should not be involved in everything.

Does this mean the supportive neighbourhood we seek depends on finding special people who are

always conducting themselves well, and never have bad days? Certainly not. In fact, it needs


23

ordinary people – we are all crooked timber – but ordinary people who are willing to be on special

terms with each other, and to join the adventure that requires. For those terms can only be

suggested in principles and values (as above); they have to be discovered, evolved and lived

together, as best we can.

Appendix 4 - Origins and development

Still Green grew out of a small group of Milton Keynes Quakers who, prompted by a visit to Hartrigg

Oaks in York in 2009, began discussing the issues associated with ‘downsizing’, growing older, and

the need for additional support. This group gradually focused on cohousing, and began reading and

investigating more systematically. In 2012, an initial Prospectus was prepared; a group of seven

visited several long-standing senior cohousing schemes in Holland; financial planning began; and we

introduced formal membership arrangements under an interim constitution (as an unincorporated

association - ‘Third Age Cohousing, Milton Keynes’).

From very early on it was apparent that the scheme could not be limited to Quakers (there would

not be enough of them wanting to try cohousing in Milton Keynes) - even if those involved had

wanted this (they didn’t). So from its early days the group has welcomed non-Quaker members.

The Milton Keynes Quaker Meeting is best understood as a sponsor of Still Green. It has provided

many supporting members who have donated funds as well as vital time and energy even though

they will not become residents. The Meeting House facilities have been available to Still Green for

meetings, free of charge. Once the neighbourhood is established the Articles of Association of Still

Green CIC provide for one (external) non-member Director to be a Quaker. That said, the Quaker

Meeting is in no doubt that Still Green has to ‘leave home’ and make its own way in the world.

Understanding these origins may be helpful for new members because the early members of Still

Green - like any founding group - were setting the tone and style of the embryonic organization.

And they tried to do so in terms of values and practices that were important to them. Thus, one

element of our original vision for Still Green was that it have ‘a Quakerly ethos’. This was explained

in terms of the central Quaker values of simplicity, truthfulness, equality and peace, and respect for

the inclusive spirituality of the Religious Society of Friends7. However it became apparent that for

non-Quakers such references raised questions and concerns more than they provided answers and

reassurance. So now the ethos we are seeking is expressed in more familiar ways, and the

statement of values and principles used in the membership application form has been revised in

secular terms. Similarly, our decision-making and organizational processes, based on a search for a

deep consensus around what is required, still echo some Quaker practices, but should stand or fall in

their own right.

7 For those who have not previously encountered Quakers it may be worth mentioning that they do not have a

creed – so there is no requirement to believe particular things. In fact MK meeting counts Buddhists and ‘non-theists’, among its members and regular attenders; and it has cordial relations with the MK Humanist Society.

DOWNSIZE - TO SOMETHING BIGGER AND BETTER

Cohousing provides a safe, close-knit neighbourhood.

Mutual support and ‘pitching in together’ means no need for high service charges.

A spread of ages makes for a lively community.

Together, in future-proofed ‘lifetime’ homes,

we can stay independent and in charge for longer.

SIMPLY BETTER LIVING

Highly energy-efficient homes - for ourselves and for the future.

Sharing and pooling resources makes social,

environmental and economic sense.

A LIVING SPACE

We are working together to create and run a neighbourhood

that will give us a healthy balance of privacy and involvement,

youth and age,

quiet retreat and continuing engagement in the wider society.

You can think of it as a way to live more sustainably.

Or as retirement housing for those who don’t much like the idea of retirement housing.

Or perhaps just as an interesting community to join.

What would you be hoping for? What would you bring to it?

Documents

Prospectus for Friends MK Senior Co-Housing · development process (planners, investors, developers), and for other stakeholders interested in our proposals (possible neighbours,